Are incremental tag-wiki edits valuable?

Question

I've been reviewing our tags, as you may have noticed from some of the "is this tag really necessary?" questions I've asked. Along the way I've been editing tag excerpts and wikis where I can fill in something. In many cases I can't make the complete, excellent wiki that ought to exist, but I can add something so I do. One thing in particular that I've been doing is to cross-reference related tags (and "use this instead" xrefs, like the civilization (Sid Meier) tag pointing to advanced-civ), because I've seen that kind of tag confusion on every SE site I participate on.

I've just noticed that some of my edits were rejected as "too minor" or "not following the wiki guidelines" (which, ironically, seems to advocate an incremental approach).

I don't want to waste reviewers' time with unwanted changes. I thought changes like this would be useful, but I haven't asked anybody. So I'll ask now: what are our expectations for wiki edits? What's the minimum useful? What's noise?

Answer 1

Suggested Edits to my knowledge need to be Approved or Rejected by two votes in agreement. Looking over the History, less than 2% of edits are rejected. I wouldn't worry about it too much. I have rejected edits that were too minor in my mind. They were just small edits that didn't add any new information or clarity. Other edits like Alt text for images for the vision impared were quickly approved.